I somehow doubt that Limbo will be defining the future of conservatism. (What an oxymoronic phrase). If conservatives choose to ignore Salaam, Douthat, Frum, Brooks and the rest it will be at their own peril. The era of slash and burn politics may or may not be over but what is over is the certainty that those tactics will work for them.

I fail to understand this notion that if the candidate I opposed on substantive grounds wins, I should embrace them. I detest almost everything Obama stands for. I really do believe his approach will be destructive to this country. I voted in a representative who clobbered his democratic opponent and who will be part of the opposition. (Yes, there are times he will vote in line with the democrats, but he's not going to rubber stamp congressional liberalism just because Obama won.)

It's not going to happen. Reagan smartly granted amnesty 20 years ago and it should be done again. Then keep building the wall and beef up the border (and the Canadia border where terrorists are more likely to enter) and talk about national security.

And Rush Limbaugh is a racist, so maybe people should not tune in to listen to racists.

I fail to understand this notion that if the candidate I opposed on substantive grounds wins, I should embrace them. I detest almost everything Obama stands for.

Ditto, what Joe said. Obama may be President, but there is no way I will ever agree with him or voluntarily cooperate with his policies.

As to immigration. I'm all for legal immigration. We are a nation of people who mostly came from other countries.

However, the flood of criminals who have broken the laws (illegal immigrants) and who are putting stress on our already stretched to the maximum social systems and aid programs....I am against them. There is nothing racist about that. They are criminals who have broken the law and who are illegally in this country.

W. did very well with Latinos and McCain, who is very pro-Latino, just got trashed by them because he was associated with the anti-immigration party.

see Synova post above. If you want to be for immigration that is now classified as illegal, change the law. For some reason that hasn't happened, but in the meantime there is a rather deliberate effort to stigmitize anti illegal immigration politicians as anti immigrants.

His point is that conservatism wins when it runs, McCain is no conservative. McCain and the NE moderates who ran on the platform that they were "nice" and bipartisan all lost.

McCain's immigration policy is proof that you must run on principle, Hispanics are not monolithic and many respect our nations borders and those that fight for them. Run as a wishy-washy "centrist" and get your shorts handed to you.

Well, someone beat me to the dissent=patriotism line, so never mind on that one.

Typical though. Those on the right are supposed to 'unit behind' the duly elected Democratic president and help carry out his agenda or else be called obstructionists, haters, etc. If you're on the left you can pretty much do whatever you want to a Republican president and still wag your finger and say "Don't question my patriotism!"

Oppositions oppose. That's what they do. I doubt we'll see anything like the BDS we've had for the last 8 years, though the media and everyone on the left will equate "I don't agree with such-and-such legislation proposed by Obama" as equivalent to "BusHitler".

When you get clobbered, you don't tell yourself, "Well, they just got lucky. Or they cheated in ways that the umpires didn't catch. We can keep our same roster and game plan and do it again the same way next time."

Yeah, the Dems cheated. Their campaign contributions were as 'roided out as Barry Bonds. Doesn't matter. An Obama Justice Department won't be looking at that anyway. The one-eyed media umpires could only see out of their left eyes. Doesn't matter in the long run, because in the end, the Republicans just got outplayed by Obama. Those errors on that muddy economic field didn't help them.

If they want to win the next time out, they need a better game plan, one that won't tie their hands behind their backs. No more public financing foolishness, where only one party plays by the rules. No more refusing to tell the truth about their opponent for fear of being called "racist." And for heaven's sake, no more refusing to mention the real culprits in the housing meltdown -- Dodd, Frank, and yes, Obama... Instead, the American people blamed it all on the Republicans, because that's who the one-eyed umps told them was at fault.

The MSM should get the MVP award for the Obama campaign. Them and the guy who disabled the credit card security features on the Obama web site.

There is a certain amount of respect due the office of the President. No one is saying that we should not take principled stands in opposition to Obama when warranted, but we should not attempt to hamstring and slander the Commander in Chief at every opportunity.

The Democrats did that because they are assholes. We, as Conservatives, should not be assholes. If we can't respect the man, we should at least respect the office.

dualdiagnosis said: McCain's immigration policy is proof that you must run on principle, Hispanics are not monolithic and many respect our nations borders and those that fight for them. Run as a wishy-washy "centrist" and get your shorts handed to you.

Quite right. No GOP politican has pandered more to La Raza and the open borders lobby than McCain, and it got him nowhere with Hispanics.

Had the GOP nominated someone like Romney or Thompson, who was serious about border enforcement and opposed amnesty, they would probably have received about the same percentage of the Hispanic vote that McCain did, without alienating their own base (and without depriving themselves of a winning wedge issue with independents, most of whom don't like amnesty any more than the GOP base does).

One of the best things that Rush and his ilk (e.g. Hannity, O'Reilly, etc.) can do for the democrats and the liberal perspective is to hold the MSM as the primary force in the defeat of McCain and the republicans. Die hard conservatives and liberals are almost completely unswayable in their belief system (these beliefs systems are almost as much a constitutional part of the true believer as their height or eye color). However, moderates and those in the middle are probably turned off by zelotry (sp?) and extremism, be it from the right or the left.

I personally believe that one of the reasons that McCain lost the middle was his perceived need to identify with extremists and fundamentalists in his party.

As long as Limbaugh is unable to work with dialectics, value yet realistically grasp the limitations of his ideology, and take healthy responsibility for his mistakes then his capacity to strengthen and expand the conservative movement is approaching its ceiling.

If the majority of conservatives follow Rush's lead, and invest most of his energies on blaming their losses on the incompetencies of the MSM, then the conservative movement will likely stagnate and return to it's marginalized position in U.S. politics, probably to be replaced by an ideology that resonates with more of the American people.

The right should learn from the left's behavior during the Bush years. Implacably oppose everything he says and does, organize, fundraise, and be ready for the day he overreaches.That day will not be long in coming, thanks to his messianic aspirations and worshipful attitude of the media.

"Implacably oppose everything he says and does, organize, fundraise, and be ready for the day he overreaches. That day will not be long in coming, thanks to his messianic aspirations and worshipful attitude of the media."

Yeah, based on his resounding victory, doubling McCain's electoral vote total, pulling in about 7,000,000 more popular votes and helping load up the House and Senate with Democrats...it really looks like he's got all kinds of problems ahead.

Aside from the quasi-Marxism, Obama is a typical corrupt Chicago pol without a principled bone in his body. He is the one the libs have been waiting for. There is no common ground between principled people and the Chicago thugs who will permeate his administration.

It would be really nice to get past the conflation of "anti-immigration" and anti-illegal immigration.

One reason many people don't bother to distinguish is explained by this excellent flow-chart from the libertarian Reason magazine. (A publication, by the way, that could help substantially in making the GOP relevant again.) The point is this:

Unless you already have a job or a relative in the United States, there is virtually no such thing as legal immigration.

You say you don't have a problem with immigration, just illegality. So legalize it and you'll have no problem.

Just because most Latinos are pro-criminal is no reason to be soft on crime. You shouldn't abandon your principles just to pander for votes.

I honestly don't think they are.

But if something is said often enough, people believe it and those who would like our borders controlled lose control of the message.

Reagan smartly granted amnesty 20 years ago and it should be done again. Then keep building the wall and beef up the border (and the Canadia border where terrorists are more likely to enter) and talk about national security.

If the fence is an okay idea... what's the hold up?

And how many times do we have to offer amnesty *first* before we can be serious about border security?

Rush is right. We have just witnessed 8 years of personal attacks, not driven by a policy disagreement but truly deranged leftist views that the 2000 election was 'stolen'. Vile personal attacks on someone who never came close to that which was claimed he did.

While some right writers are this fine day calling out for unity and getting behind Obama, those "Mats", as in door mats, are useful tools for the Democratic Party leadership, just like the Daily Kos crowd did serve the DNC agenda well since 2001.

No, today is the start of guerrilla warfare on Obama and the DNC. No unity backyard barbecues or acquiescing to the winners. The successful playbook which has brought on today's results, is what must be unleashed with political lethality on those in power. When he stumbles, we must push him back down and harder than he first fell. This is what the left did and it is what the right must do to regain power.

What the 'mats' want is indeed the right thing to do, but only when done by both parties. Doing it unilaterally merely arms the other side to continue to win and control power.

As in war, don't get into it, if you are not prepared to do what it takes to win. If the 'mats' are too timid, or too squeamish to take this to heart, so be it. Seems to me they would eventually tire of being walked on.

Limbaugh is a dolt, a bigot & a drug-addict - the attempt at a ratfuck with "Operation Chaos" backfired, giving the Democrats an extended primary in which to develop a huge & efficient election-team, with a brilliant 50-state GOTV strategy that transitioned seamlessly into the GE ... so (oh sweet, sweet irony!) he wound up helping to elect Obama, via his own egomania. His opinion is at best on a par with that of a random homeless person with regards to politics.

He is now the most overpaid person in the media. Every word from his hateful cakehole is utterly formulaic - a marathon of sonic onanism intended solely to keep the "dittoheads" tuned in - & thus useless.

"You say you don't have a problem with immigration, just illegality. So legalize it and you'll have no problem."

The problem is that "immigration" in this context is political short-hand for the immigration of Mexicans into the US. But these Mexican immigrants are, for the most part, completely unskilled workers. What we need is not more immigration of unskilled manual labor but more immigration of educated, skilled workers. I'm all for immigration, but why does it have to be just hordes more unskilled laborers? Oh, that's right, because as uneducated, non-English speakers, they'll be easy votes for the Democratic party. If you bring in educated, motivated, English-speaking immigrants, they might decide not to vote against their financial interests when they become citizens.

You say you don't have a problem with immigration, just illegality. So legalize it and you'll have no problem.

Do you support completely unrestricted immigration? I ask for the simple reason that estimates indicate that there are roughly a billion people in the world who would like to immigrate to the United States. Under your reasoning we ought to let them all come here; anything less is "anti-immigration".

I support increased immigration. I do not think that immigration ought to come in the form of tens of millions of uneducated laborers from Mexico. We're in a position to pick and choose the best of the best, and instead we're importing truckloads of coolies. It is a ridiculous situation.

Yeah, because you know... he would have won the middle... and Obama never spent an obscene fortune to identify McCain with extremists and fundamentalists in his party.

I am probably over-generalizing, however I would have voted for him if he stayed away from Ayres and selected a less polarizing vice presidential candidate. McCain's character, his cajones, his capacity to forgive his enemies, his willingness to take on Bush and Rumsfeld on Iraq, his early position on Fanny Mae, and his pragmatism were all things I admired. However, I was not interested in rewarding swiftboaters. I am burned out on politicians, pundits, and media bringing their most critical thinking to bear when viewing others outside of their political spectrum, yet suspending reality when it comes to their own party or ideology. Eventually it just f**ks everything up.

Sarah Palin is closer to the political center than Barack Obama is. Your argument makes no sense.

I don't see it that way....they, however are on opposite ends of the liberal-conservative spectrum....however, Obama's presentation appeared more consistent, more reflective and deliberate, less shrill and dogmatic.

Also, one must remember that with cable news operating 24-7 - issues are placed on a 20 minute repetition cycle (top 40 radio dosen't repeat the same song as often as cable tv blasts away at these issues. This seemingly endless recycling and drumbeat leads to all kinds of distortions in terms of the intensity and frequency of issues.

So Ayres was brought up and presented and I think that was appropriate. However, through the lens of the republican party and the media it became horribly distorted and repetitious. All 4 of my children (ages 3 to 14) were afraid of an Obama presidency because the believed he was a Muslim terrorist who would kill everybody. Two of my children, literally had problems sleeping due to their apprehension.

I am tired of the agitprop coming from the Dems and the Pubs....For me, Obama became the lesser of the two evils as McCain, Palin, and their pals attacked Obama's patriotism and portrayed him as an enemy of America over and over and over and over again.

All 4 of my children (ages 3 to 14) were afraid of an Obama presidency because the believed he was a Muslim terrorist who would kill everybody.

Neither the Republican Party nor the McCain campaign ever claimed Obama was a Muslim or a terrorist, let alone both. No commercial painting him as a terrorist or a Muslim ever ran on television or on the radio.

So if your children were all convinced he was a Muslim terrorist, your children aren't very bright.

I told my wife yesterday that the "tell" will be who he appoints to staff his cabinet. First offer goes to Rahm Emanuel, the premier practitioner of "smashmouth" politics. Kind of raises a question about the tone he was trying to set in his victory speech, doesn't it?

On the other hand, Limbaugh said something interesting about Emanuel; namely, that he led the effort to have Bill C. do the NAFTA agreement first, before Hillarycare. If that's where Emanuel is coming from policywise, then rather than whining about tough sharp elbows from Emanuel and the Obama administration, they ought to man up and seize the opportunity to achieve some good results under Obama, while reserving the prerogative to challenge and fight him when they think he's wrong.

Reflexive opposition of the Pelosi-Reid variety would be foolish and counterproductive. Note the country started taking the piss in earnest after the ascension of Pelosi-Reid. That's not the course of honor, imho.

Incidentally, was I the only one who felt like McCain was giving a sort of farewell speech last night, by which I mean to predict he will announce his retirement next year or so and not run again for office? Or is that crazy?

Rush Limbaugh is an unvarnished moron who has centrally contributed to the mayhem that has caused so much damage in the past 8 years. To grant the slightest consideration or notice to his views, other than for purposes of containment, is to hobble the nation's recovery. Limbaugh is an idealogue equal in danger to a Hermann Goering or a Joe McCarthy. Show some civic responsibility, please.

All the rabid crazies spouting off about Bush... all the psychologists bills... all the elite white women telling Italian magazines that Cheney would lead troops in the street against our own citizens... and it's RUSH who's at fault for the damage and mayhem?

Revenant wrote: So if your children were all convinced he was a Muslim terrorist, your children aren't very bright.

If the above response is representative of your level of analysis, I don't put much stock in your opinions.

However, I was not interested in rewarding swiftboaters.

Synova wrote:

And it mattered not at all to you that every time Obama opened his mouth and every time something came in the mail from his campaign it was portraying McCain as dangerously, radically, conservative?

This too was a false caricature of McCain. If you read my post, I made it pretty clear that I found Obama the lesser of the two evils. Obviously, from your perspective you may think differently. I just don't see one as all good and the other as pure evil.....I find those kinds of characterization counterproductive. And this seems to be a basic operating principle for Rush.

Of course he's not perfect, but you were making an excuse... that you liked McCain and then listed what you thought he did that put you off of him... but he didn't DO those things. The Obama campaign spent obscene funds toward painting a picture of McCain that you apparently believed.

I'm not going to say McCain was great... he was probably my next to last choice... second to last choice among those who ran for the Republican nomination. But what you describe is what Obama's campaign meant for you to think, and it's not supported by McCain's record.

So you voted for the people who accused Sarah Palin of being a neo-Nazi secessionist who wanted the teaching of evolution banned from schools. This made sense to you?

Your repeated line about "not rewarding swiftboaters" is nonsensical. McCain didn't "swiftboat" anybody. Neither did Palin. Neither did the Republican Party or the independent groups airing ads on behalf of McCain and the Republican Party. The only people you failed to "reward" were the rare Internet lunatics who actually thought Obama was a Muslim terrorist -- the folks your kids apparently listen to to the complete exclusion of the news media and the candidates themselves. But at the same time, you DID choose to "reward" left-wing "swiftboaters".

So like I said before, your argument makes no sense. Saying you liked McCain but didn't like his tactics is a fairly obvious lie.

You either did not read my initial post, elected to ignore important details of my analysis and focus on others, or maybe had trouble understanding it. Those details are pretty important.

Renevant, suggesting that my children are not bright or accusing me of lying based on a couple of posts....it's hard to know what to make of it. Do you actually believe that you are capable of determining my children's intelligence or whether I am lying or not on the basis of a couple of posts on an internet site? Or are you an entertainer, like Rush? I am electing to believe the latter, because I do find you entertaining.

Renevant, suggesting that my children are not bright or accusing me of lying based on a couple of posts....it's hard to know what to make of it. Do you actually believe that you are capable of determining my children's intelligence or whether I am lying or not on the basis of a couple of posts on an internet site?

Yes.

My guess is that you're lying about all your kids thinking Obama was a Muslim terrorist. There's no way they'd have come to believe that unless they were being raised by someone who kept telling them it was true, i.e. YOU. They wouldn't have gotten it from the media, internet, or from the surrounding community, because the overwhelming consensus in all of those forums was that Obama was (a) not Muslim, (b) not a terrorist, and (c) certainly not a murderer. It is particularly unbelievable that your three year old thought Obama was "a Muslim terrorist who would kill everyone", unless he's one of those unusual three-year-olds who prefers FreeRepublic to Dora the Explorer.

But in the unlikely event that you are telling the truth about your kids, that means that your kids are in the grip of a delusion shared by virtually nobody in America, promoted by nobody kids would normally be exposed to, and actively DENIED by Obama's opponent, John McCain. And while it was unfair of me to cite this as evidence that your three-year-old is of low intelligence (three year olds can be convinced of anything), it is entirely fair to say that any fourteen-year-old who honestly thought for even a minute that Barack Obama was a terrorist out to kill us is a fucking moron who shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects without strict parental supervision.

Presumably by a parent other than you, since any group of kids capable of being that firmly convinced of something that ludicrous is obviously not being supervised very well.

....it is entirely fair to say that any fourteen-year-old who honestly thought for even a minute that Barack Obama was a terrorist out to kill us is a fucking moron who shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects without strict parental supervision....

C'mon.....are you being serious. I'll throw out another account. We live in a very conservative area in the Bible Belt and my oldest, who cruises the internet on a regular basis, often shares her opinions with her brothers and siblings.

Renevant, your humor is kind of a cross between Sam Kennison and Andrew Dice Clay. Either that or you seem to getting more agitated with each successive post.

BTW, there were a few adults that I know, with college degrees (one of them a teacher in the public schools), who voted for McCain because they believed that Obama was the antichrist. No Joke.

There's no way they'd have come to believe that unless they were being raised by someone who kept telling them it was true,

Actually... it's not beyond possible that the kids knew who *Osama* was and missed the difference of *Obama*.

If they were *very* young.

When my oldest daughter was four she thought we'd given *her* name, "Gabby" to the new baby. All problems solved when we started using the baby's name... but she'd still correct ladies at church cooing over the "baby."

I recall having nightmares about my father being shot because I overheard him say something about getting "fired."

Renevant: Yeah, my first guess was correct. You're just inventing the story about your kids.

OK.....now we are getting somewhere...you acknowledge that you are actually guessing......so there is some reality testing going on.....still, alot of grandiosity....I can still detect some of your humor...it reminds me of the late Andy Kaufmann......

Republican spewed... "Poorly educated white and black voters of all ages put Obama over the top ... Those who oppose him are not obligated to now support him because he got more votes."

And I guess that just about summarizes the anti-American sorelooser right wing found here. Fine "republican"...then get the hell out of the country. He is the President elect and you've just announced that demoncracy means nothing to you. How do you feel about the California same sex marriage vote? Obviously with your stupid logic those who favor same sex marriage can just do what they want and don't have to recognize the ban.

Sometimes I fear more for the future of this country because of the jerks within it rather than the threats from the outside.